The future of Sheltered Housing?

I read an interesting article last week by Paul White of Bernica Living, focusing on the “retirement” housing sector, or what used to be called “sheltered housing”.

Bernica was experiencing lots of voids due the stigmatised sheltered housing concept, and their outdated social offer (Bingo and knitting). So, they changed the language, they marketed better, and they improved how they used their social spaces. As a result, the void times have come down from 110 to 78 weeks.

Positively marketing the sheltered housing, Paul used the word “age-exclusive” (over 55s), plus promoting the added benefit of a “location officer”, or “concierge” as we termed them at Notting Hill Genesis.

And it made me think.

There are nearly 700,000 sheltered homes in the social housing stock and much of it is not very desirable – long void times should be telling us something. New language, a decorative refresh and better social activities obviously make a difference. However I have my doubts about age-exclusive housing. It doesn’t feel right to segregate middle aged (most 55 year olds are holding down a job and expect to work for a least another decade) and older people.

I know that for some, not being near noisy children, young families, teenagers or Saturday night parties has its advantages. But if you are over 55, how do you feel? Personally I love being with younger generations, entertaining and supporting their friends and families as well as enjoying some help and support from them. This is why I would suggest that local authorities and housing associations should consider their hard to let, age-exclusive housing in the round. Could improving it free up bigger homes for families? Could knocking it down and starting again provide better solutions? Some, which are often low rise, on big sites could be considered for regeneration and densification, providing at least everything that was there before for the older residents but with addition facilities and services for the community as a whole. Some could be adapted by enlarging flats to provide a wider range of options like family housing or modern, self-contained homes for single people or older couples.

And then there is the issue of the communal social spaces. Some are being used as charging and storage for electric scooters as the individual flats are very small. At Notting Hill, we organised activities for residents such as art clubs and fitness sessions, but it is hard to make them successful and relevant (or cost effective). It seems to me that it is more fun to go out to community colleges or further education courses where older people mix with a wider range of people rather than just their immediate neighbours. Maybe the activities fund could be better spent on transport to facilities that already exist in the community?

I know that the APPG on Housing and Care for Older People will be reporting soon on how to renew the existing stock. There are also calls for more age-specific homes to be built.

Mixed and balanced communities is a principle I find hard to compromise on. Home owners and tenants choose multi-generational housing whenever they can. What do you think?